Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes SUB 12-3-91 SUBDIVISION-COMMJTTEE MINUTES December 3, 1991 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Henry Blackwell, Henrietta Lamb, Judi Jacobs, Tom Welch STAFF PRESENT: David Cunningham Mr. Blackwell called the subdivision committee meeting to order and introduced the first item. Item 1. Docket No. 44-91 PP - Rosemead Commons Primary Plat Petitioners present: Jim Nelson, Bob Dine Mr. Nelson located the proposed plat by referencing a map of adjoining properties. He further stated that this application is a primary plat for Rosemead Commons. Property is zoned R-1 and the plat as shown has 18 lots on an extended cul-de-sac with a stub street to the east. The plat also includes the dedication of a 75' half right-of-way on the north side of 116th Street and a small lake for retention purposes. The petitioner is requesting a Subdivision Control Ordinance variance from section 6.3.22 - Installation of required accel\decel lanes, due to restricted right-of-way (existing 16.5' halves). The petitioner is unable to meet the length requirement of the decel lane and taper. (The petitioner has been able to acquire additional right-of-way from the adjoining property owners to allow for the required width of the decel lane and taper and to allow for the required accel lane and taper to be installed as required by ordinance.) Mr. Blackwell asked that the record reflect the receipt of a letter from Mrs. Sharon Clark regarding her concern with the traffic on 116th Street. Mr. Nelson stated that all of the lots proposed will exceed the minimum lot size per the Zoning Ordinance, (min. 10,000 square feet; smallest lot in the plat exceeds 17, 000 square feet). Mr. Blackwell asked how short of the required length is the proposed decel lane. Staff indicated the ordinance requires a 100' decel lane and a 150' taper, the proposed length design has a 50' decel lane and a 75' taper. Mr. Blackwell then asked what the speed limit is on that section of road. Staff indicated that it is posted at 30 miles per hour. Page 2 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 3, 1991 Mr. Blackwell asked what the surrounding property uses are and possibilities for development. Mr. Dine described the surrounding properties, current owners, and possibilities for development. Mr. Blackwell asked from who and how much right-of-way had been obtained from the adjoining property owners. Mr. Nelson explained the details of the right-of-way purchases form the adjoining properties. Mrs. Jacobs asked if there was a safety problem that dictates the accel\decel lanes, or is it perceived that the installation of these will eliminate any problems relating to safety once a development is completed. Mr. Nelson stated that he believed that the impact of this development (18 lots) will not have a significant impact (approx. 144 trips a day) onto 116th Street and the improvements as shown will mitigate any negative impact that the development might have. Mr. Nelson further explained the need for the variance and its affect on the traffic patterns on 116th Street. The decel lane allowse a right turn movement into the development and would not affect the normal flow of traffic on 116th Street. Mr. Blackwell asked if any of the public had questions or comments for this petition. Mr. Jim Quinn asked if this had been included in the Mayors' Task Force that studied 116th Street. Staff indicated that the Mayor's Task Force study only included the area east of Keystone to the city limits,just west of River Road. Mr. Cunningham further stated that it was his understanding that the City has looked at improving 116th Street from Meridian to the White River in phases and that this is due to the multiple jurisdictions of control (City and County) and lack of development activity (in relationship to the rest of the Township) is one of the later phases scheduled to be improved. Mr. Welch explained that this is on the edge of the city limits and that the County had jurisdiction on the southside of the right-of-way. Any improvements to the southside would require the County's approval. Page 3 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 3, 1991 Mrs. Jacobs asked if the County had been contacted about this development. Mr. Nelson stated that they had been in attendance at the TAC meeting and had written a letter that stated they had no interest in this project. Mr. Blackwell asked if there were any other questions from the committee; if not he would entertain a motion to approve. Motion: To approve Docket No. 44-91 PP, Primary Plat application for Rosemead Commons as submitted. Tom Welch Second: Judi Jacobs Action: Approved, 3-0 Mrs. Lamb had not yet arrived. Item 2 Docket No. 56-91 PP -Avian Glen Primary plat (replat) Section 2 through 6 Petitioners present: Jim Nelson, Chris White, Stu Huckleberry Mr. Nelson located the proposed plat by referencing a map of adjoining properties. He further stated that this application is a primary plat-replat for Avian Glen (originally approved in January of 1991). The changes in the replat incorporate an additional lake for retention needs, the addition of a recreational amenity area for the residents and the elimination of a majority of the cul-de-sacs as proposed in the original plat. The petitioner has responded to the TAC concerns, and any comments can be directed to either Chris White or the staff. At the public hearing a concern about the inter connection of this development to Valleybrook and Woodfield was raised. Mr. Nelson gave a brief history on the approval of the connections in the original plat and the petition to vacate and create a cul-de-sac in Valleybrook and the litigation of the suit filed against the Plan Commission. Mr. Blackwell asked if anything could be done to slow down the traffic movements through subdivisions. Mr. White stated that the best factor to control traffic speed is the actual design of the road system. In the case of Avian Glen, the curvi-linear street pattern and the inclusion of T-intersections (stop signs) will slow the traffic but still allow for sight distances for safe traffic patterns. Mr. Blackwell asked if anyone from the public had comments or questions. Page 4 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 3, 1991 Mr. Peter Hogan, 5284 Woodfield Drive South, stated his concern with the connection to the Woodfield subdivision and the impact that the elimination of the connection with Valleybrook would have on the traffic movement in Woodfield. Additionally, Mr. Hogan would like to suggest the possibility of not developing some of the lots that adjoin Woodfield to create a transition landscaped buffer and give identity to each development. Mr. Hogan further stated that he hoped that the construction traffic for Avian Glen would be routed off of Hazeldell Road and not through the existing residential developments. Mr. John Fenton, 5290 Woodfield Drive South, would reflect the same concerns as Mr. Hogan. Steve Brown, attorney representing the Valleybrook Homeowners Association, expanded on Mr. Nelson's explanation of the history of the Valleybrook stub. He further stated that the Association and the developer had been discussing different options for the connection street. These options include the purchasing of the lots in Avian Glen and the installation of a park\buffer area, installation of a transition area. Additionally, Mr. Brown stated that the Comprehensive plan calls for a collector street in this general area and implementation of traffic control devices to slow the traffic conflicts with the Comp. Plan. Mr. Jim Quinn stated that the homeowners in Valleybrook are asking for the same consideration as the developers do, in respect that they are requesting a variance of the Subdivision Regulations (elimination of the connection). He further stated that if when some site engineering difficulty or drainage concern caused the connection to be economically unfeasible, the developer would be asking for a variance of the connection. It is the safety issue that is the underlying concern. He would ask the DOCD staff to discuss the safety aspects of the design of the plat. Staff stated that through the design of the curvi-linear road patterns and the inclusion of the T-intersections, traffic could be controlled. Staff further stated that there are two different sides to the safety issue: one being the safety of the residents of the area involved and it is being handled by the design of the roads; the other safety aspect is that of the citizens in general or of public safety. This is one of the underlying factors of interconnection of subdivisions. The interconnection allows safety equipment (ambulances, fire trucks. police cars, etc.) to access developments or individual properties in a direct manner rather than indirectly usingu the primary access routes. The connection of the existing stubs into this development is good traffic sense. Mr. Quinn asked why there was no stub to the south. Page 5 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 3, 1991 Staff indicated that there is a stub to the south in anticipation of the vacate land to the south being developed in the future as the ordinance requires. Mr. Blackwell stated the Subdivision Committee is powerless unless there is a overwhelming safety or health concern established or if the plat does not meet the Subdivision Regulations to deny the approval of a plat. Mr. Blackwell asked if there were any other questions from the committee; if not he would entertain a motion to approve. Mrs. Lamb indicated that the development would be eliminating a lot of the trees that exist on the property today. Mr. White indicated that the petitioner has committed to a restrictive tree preservation plan, and copies are available for review. Motion: To approve Docket No. 56-91 PP, Primary Plat (replat) application for Avian Glen Sections 2 through 6 as submitted. Henrietta Lamb Second: Judi Jacobs Action: Approved, 4-0 Item 3 Docket No. 60-91 SP - Foxwood Section 1 Secondary Plat Petitioners present: Stan Neal, Steve Pittman Mr. Neal located the proposed plat by referencing a map of adjoining properties. He further stated that this application is a secondary plat for Foxwood Section 1. Property is zoned R-1 and the plat as shown conforms with the primary plat as approved, the Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Neal offered to answer any questions and would request approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Blackwell asked if the TAC concerns had been addressed. Staff indicated that the County Highway had addressed a concern regarding the roadside drainage along the northside of 103rd Street. Page 6 Subdivision Committee Minutes December 3, 1991 Mr. Neal indicated that the construction plans would address those concerns and the ditch would be regraded during the construction of the development. Mr. Blackwell asked the price range of the homes in the development. Mr. Pittman stated that The Estridge Group planned for homes ranging in the $120,000.00 plus. Mr. Blackwell asked if there were any other questions from the committee; if not he would entertain a motion to approve. Motion: To approve Docket No. 60-91 SP, Secondary Plat application for Foxwood Section 1 as submitted. Judi Jacobs Second: Henrietta Lamb Action: Approved, 4-0 Additional Item Item 4 Docket No. 63-91 SP - Bridlebourne Section 6 Secondary Plat - reapproval Petitioners present: Jim Hart Staff indicated that the petitioner is appearing before the committee for a reapproval for a secondary plat for Section Six. The Subdivision regulations state that a secondary approval is valid for one year. The Secondary plat for Section Six was originally approved in May of 1990, therefore as of May 1991 its approval is null and void. Mr. Hart is appearing before the committee this evening asking for a reapproval of the plat. Mr. Hart located the proposed plat by referencing a map of adjoining properties. He further stated that this application is a secondary plat for Section Six is identical to the plat that was approved in 1990. Therefore, requested approval of the plat as submitted. Motion: To reapprove Docket No. 63-91 SP, Secondary Plat application for Bridlebourne Section Six as submitted. Henrietta Lamb Second: Judi Jacobs Action: Approved, 4-0